Penguin68

bawdy-nan wrote:- > Penguin68 Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- There seems to be a > weird presumption that certain charities should > curtail their own activities for the benefit of > separate groups. Would this be expected of other > charities or is it just that private schools are > considered to be a fair target? > Actually, the quote attributed to me was a comment by EDLove to a comment of mine - not that I would necessarily distance myself from it, but it wasn't actually my expressed view.

so that they could build houses that will be used to subsidise local private school more. Interesting to see a local councillor not wanting more housing locally - the Estates job as far as administering the charitable donation is to fund their (not other people's) education delivery - including offering bursaries to allow a wider range of chidren to benefit (so not quite the spirit implied by 'local private school') - you don't like private education - that's your (political) right of course, but to suggest that the Trust isn't acting properly because they aren't following your political prejudices is unhelpful - it's like being a Wee Free and complaining (and suggesting they are acting unethically) because the local Catholic Church isn't giving land for your church to be built on.

The DE are subsidising private education locally at the expense of state school kids No, they are choosing not to subsidise or provide subsidised facilities to state funded schools but not 'at the expense' of these schools, since it is their own facilities/ grounds that they are not sharing - to do so would be at the expense of their intended (chartered) charitable aims. It is only at 'the expense of' if you consider that state schools have a right to other people's property which they should be able to compel them to give up. At the moment, such compulsory purchase or acquisition on behalf of state schools is not lawful. All those people living around state schools are also, presumably, in your philosopy, subsidising their accommodation 'at the expense' of those schools to which they are adjacent, rather than giving up their property free and gratis to those schools. They choose to allocate their funds for 'educational purposes' in the way they, rather than you, would wish it - but that's what a free society should be about. Edward Alleyn did not set up his charity to fund what would normally be funded by taxation, but to fund that which isn't funded by taxation. Which private schools aren't (at least directly).

Very many European countries offer city dwellers mainly apartment living - meaning that private gardens are unusual - the garden suburb is a very British institution - even where there are private houses in cities they very often are built around courtyards - so gardens again are unusual (in our sense). British style gardens associated with domestic houses tend to be a countryside phenomenon, where they exist at all. Very often, where there are gardens with city housing, these are very small and mainly paved and ornamental - and would not be suitable for further building

I actually prefer living in a CPZ (I park right outside my house every time), but it does have drawbacks... Very evidently

Is there residents' parking in ED/ How did that one slip through?

I suspect the family income spread for those at private schools is, in fact, far wider (greater percentage between richest and poorest households) than for state schools. All you need is a couple of 100% bursaries and an oligarch and you have a hugely diverse socio-economic spread!

This is clearly all about making parking on local streets increasingly impossible, by blanking out large areas of kerb every time a new dropped kerb is installed - how quickly before the clamour for (charged for) residents parking arises, as peope are squeezed out of parking options in 'their' streets - no wonder we have had such silence from at least one of our elected councillors, although fair do's to Renata for trying to bottom this out - but then she doesn't have history, does she?

I would add, as regards the downsides of speed humps, that large vehicles (i.e. skip lorries) that go over them at anything less than fractionally over 0mph cause consequental damage (by the force they hit the road) on adjacent properties; my garden wall has been badly damaged by vibrations of passing heavy traffic. In smaller roads with humps the vibration damage must be effecting not just garden walls but the houses themselves. BUT - since humps have been put in my road, the numbers of accidents (and injury to pedestrians) has fallen - so clearly they are of benefit - I just wonder whether phantom humps (perhaps still with some real humps would be as effective safety wise?

I recall that Alleyn's terminated its Sports Club (which allowed people to use the pool and gym/ fitness facilities when the school wasn't operating, inter alia, for a fee) to dedicate the time freed up to local use of local clubs (the membership of Alleyn's Club had been parents and associates of the school - i.e local middle class private users). I do not know whether and how much they charge for this facility, nor how much it is in fact used by local clubs, but clearly they gave up a revenue stream in order to facilitate this. This was a consequence, I think, of the act.

I know the Brixton non-humps, but even then I am aware of modifying my driving when I see them. I don't think familiarity loses it for me, but is a useful reminder, like the 'rapel' speed limit reminders in France.

There is nothing charitable about that The charitable act is to give funds to support education - which is seen as being a 'good' thing. The application of those funds to meet educational needs is a necessary part of the charity's activity, but isn't (and needn't) itself be considered 'charitable'. Many artistic establishments are also charities - such as the Royal Operal House, but putting on operas isn't (very obviously) an act of charity. The tickets for the opera (and the fees for the schools) are not considered to be charitable donations, and attract no tax relief, donations (including the original donation, and others from 'friends' of the opera house, or school alumni), are treated as 'charitable gifts' for tax purposes. Don't confuse the work of a charity as being in and of itself 'charitable' - so long as it meets the criteria set out by the Charities Commission. Maintaining stately homes and parks for (paying) visitors is what the National Trust does, it is a charity - what it does isn't (really) charitable.

Pure speculation, but maybe the empty train was sped through to remove outgoing passengers from platforms relieving congestion to make room for incoming passengers.

Driving through Brixton today I was reminded that around Brixton Market ?phantom? road humps have been painted on the road ? looking as if a white line had been painted round an area like our own mini humps (three in-line). I found myself moderating my driving as if the humps had been real, and wondered whether these phantom humps did generally moderate speeds etc. If this does moderate driving behaviour it has the merit of doing so at minimal cost both in road-works and in consequential wear-and-tear on vehicles. Whilst not suggesting that all our ED humps be replaced by phantom humps, I wonder whether some mixed economy of real and phantom humps might be introduced (assuming the Lambeth experience is positive about their moderating effects) ? thus reducing expenditure on roads whilst benefiting drivers through reduction of additional wear on tyres, reducing needs for re-tracking steering etc. As ?real? humps actually cause additional wear on roads (as well as having an implicit cost of their own) , such a plan would benefit both the public and private purse. Of course, their effectiveness in moderating road speeds still needs to be demonstrated (if it hasn?t already been in Lambeth) ? but if the numbers of real humps on our roads can be reduced, whilst the road safety benefit of having humps is broadly maintained, this should be a win-win situation for ED.

I believe charities are also exempt from VAT, although they would be obliged to pay NI contributions. Capital gains (from property disposal) are I think tax exempt, and I'm not sure they'd have to pay stamp duty on property acquisitions. And I think that they can make trading profits, as long as these are earmarked for future investment. Happy to stand corrected on any of this. Where they raise funds (through donations rather than fees) these gain additional funds to take into account tax paid, where donations have been made from taxed income. There is a fiscal argument that private education is of (some, not necessarily matched) benefit in that otherwise the public purse would have to pay additionally the costs of those being educated privately - and of course those paying for private education in addition also continue to pay rates and taxes to cover the costs of state education, without themselves benefitting from this (but then so do those without children at all).

Otta I don't think there is any hyperbole, and I expect you're right. 'Over the moon' - 'gutted' - both slightly over-egged phrases/ verbs - but I did mean it kindly. - I'd have gone with 'quite pleased' and 'quite upset' if I hadn't a rhetorical point to make.

to put it bluntly, a family spending a million plus on a house are likely to have a load more disposable income than any number of long time local families on low incomes. Actually, that very much depends on how much in debt they have had to go to 'afford' a 7 figure price for a house. Even assuming that they are trading up from a smaller property/ less desirable area, their disposable income in the short term is likely to be heavily constrained by mortgage repayments, particularly if they are also (as so many seem to be) picking up the costs of parenthood. I remember (luckily I did this at a time of high inflation, when my 'real' debt came down quite quickly), that the early years of property ownership, with small children, were not a time of unlimited disposable income, even though I would have been in a more privileged position than some - the equivalent of those being portrayed here. Their aspirations (and their desire to be 'read' in particular way) may take them into the M&S camp, but they will (probably) be making other economies to do this. Those with real disposable income in ED are those who bought some time ago, have paid down or off their mortgage and whose children are now (more) self supporting, I would suggest.

Otta wrote:- For every household that ios over the moon with an M&S opening, there will be a family that is gutted about the loss of a shop were they can actually afford to shop. I think it's very sad. Ignoring the hyperbole, I suspect that the local demographic has actually tipped from Iceland to M&S - hence the changeover... Of course there will be those who greatly regret the loss of Iceland - but they are probably now outnumbered by those who will welcome M&S. Iceland would have stayed where it was(I suspect) if its market in LL was still as strong as in the past - the fact that it seems willing to move suggests that its forecast income from an enlarged site was not sufficient to justify higher rentals. The fact (if it is actually a fact) that M&S is moving in and Iceland moving out is a reflection of economic reality and that a function of both changed business pricing structures and changed population in ED. Over time I also suspect that the Iceland offer (at its end of the market) is being trumped by Lidl and Aldi. What this does mean is that choice for some in ED will be restricted - and that Iceland's absence, for some, will be a real loss. But those numbers will be less (and increasingly so) than those who think they will benefit from a small ED M&S.

Anschluss

Surely this was what e-Bay was all about....

(1) - The council charge a fair amount to institute a dropped curb and (2) many houses can park more than 1 car, so one car's space lost to street parking (through the dropped curb) may increase the parking opportunity (or reduce parking stress) by double. I can park 4 off street - and regularly park 3 - so my dropped curb has had a net benefit (assuming I/ my household would still have the cars, which I would) of 2-3 road-side parking spaces.

In 1901 family sizes tended to be much larger (and in addition there would have been resident servants), and many houses would have had (in the poorer areas) multiple families living in them. Most middle-class families in 1901 would have had at least one resident domestic servant, upper-middle class houses perhaps two or three. The number of new houses in the area (outwith individual houses which replaced bomb-damaged houses) are mainly the big blocks of flats, which themselves replaced exisiting tenements, which would tend to be highly occuied. Considering that by 1901 ED was already pretty built-up, 20% population growth doesn't seem unreasonable. Compare those resident in the City of London in 1901 and now, where there has been (I believe) a population collapse. Edited to say - I hadn't noticed that the original figures may not both have been 'ward' based - if 'Dulwich' is being compared with ED ward then, whilst my general comments probably still hold, the growth rate I suggest is rubbish.

I think there may be confusion here between curbs dropped to allow off-street parking access (private requests) and curbs dropped by the council to allow disabled/ wheelchair, buggy crossing of streets. These (which are often accompanied in ED by textured pavements for blind/ partially sighted guidance) are 'protected' by double yellow lines to make sure they are not obscured/ blocked by parked cars (and that people using them are fully visible). I can imagine that different protection for different dropped curb purposes could be confused. Where they are at junctions they would anyway be protected by rules governing parking at junctions; but where they were not at junctions additional protection might be required.

Let's hope they don't read this forum then...

I think this comment was an introduction to the first table which does then analyse impact based both on non-re-use and re-use. It's of course a truism, but those do tend to stand-out in executive summaries. You have to advocate re-use to then base analysis on that. And if re-use is important, education/ advocacy for its adoption may then be needed.